PDA

View Full Version : What does the arbiter do?



Phil Bourke
27-02-2009, 12:06 PM
AC raised this matter in an unsavoury manner in another thread and upon Ian's good suggestion, I will transfer the 'serious' debate to this forum if that is allowed.

Taking the recent NCC example, my question is just what restrictions are on the arbiter in cases like this?

Granted that peering over a cubicle wall infringes normal expectations it does seem quite appropriate by an arbiter in the execution of his duty if he is legitimately checking on suspicous behaviour that may include cheating.

So is an arbiter permitted to do this, or is he constrained by the conventions of the general populus?

Is a male arbiter able to ask another female who isn't an arbiter to check on a female in similar circumstances? I think that is one boundary that I don't want to cross. :)

Ian Rout
27-02-2009, 03:15 PM
For the purpose of the discussion I take it we are considering circumstances similar to the recent issue but where the arbiter is fairly certain but not so completely confident to take the same approach, or physically can't (for instance not tall enough, or no gap over the door).

The Laws of Chess seem to give the arbiter a fair amount of discretion to do what is necessary to deal with matters not specifically covered (Article 13 and the Preface). The arbiter could initially ask the player, on emerging from the toilet, to accompany them to the arbiters' room. The immediate reaction (guilt, alarm) would already give a bit of a hint.

Of course an arbiter would only go these lengths after becoming reasonably certain something is happening, as did happen at Manly.

The arbiter can then explain that the player seems to be visiting the toilet a lot and questions have been asked so they would like to see the contents of the player's pockets. Having found the hand-held device the arbiters then have to address the question of whether there is anything on it to prove guilt, such as still being warm, a history file, saved position etc.

However like decisions in any sport it's not a court of law, there is no presumption of innocence, right to remain silent etc. If the player refuses to answer or answers evasively then I'd suggest that unexplained toilet visits and unexplained possession of a hand-held device are sufficient grounds for at least default of the game. Should an appeals committee disagree then so be it, but the arbiter has to make a decision one way or the other.

This is similar to the approach taken in other cheating allegation cases where, for instance, a player who was beating GMs was asked to play a blitz game with his headwear off.

Probably it would be harder to get a two-year suspension on evidence less conclusive than being caught red-handed, though it should be noted that in most of the other cheating cases the offender hasn't been back anyway.

antichrist
27-02-2009, 06:08 PM
It seems like that Dennis wants to paid up front before offering a lawyer's advice

Denis_Jessop
27-02-2009, 06:58 PM
It seems like that Dennis wants to paid up front before offering a lawyer's advice

i don't want to be paid at all. Nor am I prepared to purport to give any formal legal advice on this forum on any question. Opinions that I express are personal opinions that may, on occasions, be influenced by my having training and experience in law.

In the present case I'd just point out that the role of an arbiter is to see that the Laws of Chess are strictly enforced (Laws: Art. 13.1) and that, without expressing a view one way or the other on the facts here, evidence that is illegally obtained is not thereby inadmissible.

DJ

antichrist
27-02-2009, 07:08 PM
i don't want to be paid at all. Nor am I prepared to purport to give any formal legal advice on this forum on any question. Opinions that I express are personal opinions that may, on occasions, be influenced by my having training and experience in law.

In the present case I'd just point out that the role of an arbiter is to see that the Laws of Chess are strictly enforced (Laws: Art. 13.1) and that, without expressing a view one way or the other on the facts here, evidence that is illegally obtained is not thereby inadmissible.

DJ

should not it read admissible like in normal court procedures and justice to prevail

thanks for implying that it was illegal to peep

Basil
27-02-2009, 07:22 PM
Hi Denis

I'm having difficulty with the quoted text. Is it possible to rephrase it in the post please - or at least offer a paraphrase?

Cheers
H


... and that, without expressing a view one way or the other on the facts here, evidence that is illegally obtained is not thereby inadmissible.

DJ

Zwischenzug
27-02-2009, 07:26 PM
I read that quote as: "Evidence obtained illegally can't be used to build a case".

antichrist
27-02-2009, 07:30 PM
luckly we did not pay Dennis up front, he would need second helpings to explain himself. Maybe the chess laws is as Dennis states, they are a rule unto themselves?

Kevin Bonham
27-02-2009, 08:34 PM
I read that quote as: "Evidence obtained illegally can't be used to build a case".

That's not what he's saying. In fact, he's saying that illegality wouldn't necessarily prevent using the evidence, rather than that it would.


Is a male arbiter able to ask another female who isn't an arbiter to check on a female in similar circumstances?

Yes. An arbiter can deputise any person to act as an assistant arbiter - for instance this is often done in cases where there are many time scrambles on at the same time and not enough arbiters to go around.

Desmond
27-02-2009, 08:35 PM
I read that quote as: "Evidence obtained illegally can't be used to build a case".I read it the opposite way, that it could be used.

Denis_Jessop
27-02-2009, 09:10 PM
Hi Denis

I'm having difficulty with the quoted text. Is it possible to rephrase it in the post please - or at least offer a paraphrase?

Cheers
H

I thought what i said was clear but I'll expand.

First AC's allegation that I implied that the arbiter's action was illegal is just silly - I made it specifically clear that I made no comment on that matter.

Secondly, it is an established legal principle that the fact that evidence was illegally obtained does not necessarilly render it inadmissible. You could say that illegally obtained evidence is neverthless admissible though, as a bald statement, that is less accurate.

In fact, as this was not a legal proceeding, the point is not 100% relevant anyway.

DJ

Basil
27-02-2009, 09:18 PM
I thought what i said was clear but I'll expand.
You possibly were clear, and I appreciate your development.


Secondly, it is an established legal principle that the fact that evidence was illegally obtained does not necessarilly render it inadmissible.
This I didn't know and, having expected the opposite, was the cause of my confusion.

Thanks

H

Zwischenzug
27-02-2009, 10:43 PM
I read it the opposite way, that it could be used.
Doh! That's right. Like gunner, expected that it isn't admissible and accidentally skipped right past the word 'NOT' in 'not necessarily'.

Denis_Jessop
28-02-2009, 12:38 PM
You possibly were clear, and I appreciate your development.


This I didn't know and, having expected the opposite, was the cause of my confusion.

Thanks

H

The rule is also the opposite of what one would expect (myself included) and so is subject to all sorts of qualifications. I don't know much about them as the criminal law, where the matter mostly comes up, is not an area in which I had any practical involvement. I think that its justification lies in the difficulty of obtaining evidence by legal means in some cases particularly of major crimes where the criminals are skilled at avoiding detection.

DJ

Garvinator
28-02-2009, 01:44 PM
I think that its justification lies in the difficulty of obtaining evidence by legal means in some cases particularly of major crimes where the criminals are skilled at avoiding detection.
I believe it comes under two areas, one which you mention, where police are able to use deception as part of their investigation techniques ie lying to a suspect about facts of a case. The presumption under law being that the guilty person would know that what the police officer is saying is a lie and would deny is anyways, so would not admit to it.

As for the admission of illegally obtained information, my understanding is that it comes down to whose legal rights were violated. While the information/evidence may have been illegally obtained, if your rights were not PERSONALLY violated, you may not have any right to object to its admission.

As for chess tournaments, your rights are even more curtailed in this area because by entering the tournament which plays under the fide laws of chess, you are agreeing to not leaving the playing area while it is your turn to move, that the arbiter is to enforce all laws of chess etc.

Of course within the bounds of the laws of the state/country that the tournament is being played in ;) but I don't believe the laws of chess are framed in a way that violate the laws of any state/country :uhoh:

Kaitlin
28-02-2009, 02:27 PM
Is that a double negative in your pocket or am I simply stupid? ;)



Lawyers get paid by the word ..didnt you know that :rolleyes:

antichrist
28-02-2009, 03:18 PM
Lawyers get paid by the word ..didnt you know that :rolleyes:

So I take it that a double negative means two more noughts on the account

Denis_Jessop
28-02-2009, 03:39 PM
Lawyers get paid by the word ..didnt you know that :rolleyes:

I think that went out not long after Noah. When I first started in the legal profession in 1958 lawyers were paid per folio of 72 words for certain documents but I'd be surprised if that is so now. The means of calculating costs varied depending on the kind of matter it was. I don't recall any surcharge for double negatives or even for clients who were a pest. :doh:

DJ

antichrist
02-03-2009, 09:13 PM
I don't think it has been conceded yet that if children are going to be spied upon in toilets, they and their parents are to be warned first before entering the competition, and parents must give their consent.

The mothers that I have spoken to this agree with me. Some distant voices even tell me that it is illegal to look over.

Bill Gletsos
02-03-2009, 09:22 PM
I don't think it has been conceded yet that if children are going to be spied upon in toilets, they and their parents are to be warned first before entering the competition, and parents must give their consent.They are not randomlly being spied upon so stop continually misrepresenting the situation.
It was quite clear in the case at hand that the player was acting suspiciously.

The mothers that I have spoken to this agree with me.I wouldnt trust you to represent the facts of the matter accurately, therefore whether they agree with you is highly suspect.

Some distant voices even tell me that it is illegal to look over.The opinion of clueless clowns on the toolbox is as always irrelevant.

antichrist
02-03-2009, 09:29 PM
They are not randomlly being spied upon so stop continually misrepresenting the situation.

A/C
I am not attempting to misrepresent the situation. I mean such notice should be given whether randomly or non-randomly spied upon. No matter what it can't be done without prior warning. I want to phone up Richard about this for an opinion.

BG
It was quite clear in the case at hand that the player was acting suspiciously.

A/C
As the player and parent/guardian had not been warned before the comp began then tough luck, no peeping, just wait till they come out.

BG
I wouldnt trust you to represent the facts of the matter accurately, therefore whether they agree with you is highly suspect.

A/C
I just asked a mother a few minutes ago. Her response was that even children have to have their privacy.

The opinion of clueless clowns on the toolbox is as always irrelevant.

Wasn't it amazing they all agreed with me - how should I take that?

Bill Gletsos
02-03-2009, 09:58 PM
Wasn't it amazing they all agreed with me - how should I take that?As an all conclusive fact that you cannot represent the facts of the actual situation accurately. :hand:

antichrist
03-03-2009, 07:10 AM
As an all conclusive fact that you cannot represent the facts of the actual situation accurately. :hand:

due to my poor quoting methods (uncurable) did you read all my points 2 posts up.

Will you speak to Richard or myself? Seeing you don't trust my representative skills you had better.

Spot on I think my proposal that it goes to JCL committee that is full of parents it is their children we are discussing.

My gut feeling as a chess teacher in schools is that I would really hate to have to go back to the principal and tell her I was looking over the toilet wall and I noticed...

I would expect to be decommissioned forthwith. There are even separate toilets for adults and children in schools, in primary school at least, also high school in the modern ones I went to.

Bill Gletsos
03-03-2009, 08:35 AM
due to my poor quoting methods (uncurable) did you read all my points 2 posts up.

Will you speak to Richard or myself? Seeing you don't trust my representative skills you had better.

Spot on I think my proposal that it goes to JCL committee that is full of parents it is their children we are discussing.The NSWJCL and the AusJCL committees are well aware of the actions of the arbiter neither committee has criticised the actions of the arbiter in this matter.

Garvinator
03-03-2009, 08:44 AM
I recommend that no arbiter respond to antichrist :whistle:

Denis_Jessop
03-03-2009, 12:43 PM
I don't think it has been conceded yet that if children are going to be spied upon in toilets, they and their parents are to be warned first before entering the competition, and parents must give their consent.

The mothers that I have spoken to this agree with me. Some distant voices even tell me that it is illegal to look over.

If you're hearing voices you should consider seeking help especially if the voices are in the Toolbox.

DJ

Ian Rout
03-03-2009, 12:57 PM
The mothers that I have spoken to this agree with me. Some distant voices even tell me that it is illegal to look over.
Does it occur to you that they were agreeing in the hope that you would shut up and go away?

Speaking of legalities, I recently read an opinion by an American attorney (I think it would have been on chessbase and relating to New York law) that cheating in chess tournaments would be a criminal act under fraud or racketeering laws. I don't think we have the offence of racketeering but it sounds likely that if prizes are involved it would constitute fraud. So perhaps an option for the arbiter, if he wished to avoid several weeks of AC's performing, would be to call the police and have them break down the cubicle door. I expect that privacy laws are not an issue when police are detaining a suspected criminal.

antichrist
03-03-2009, 04:50 PM
I challenge all you bods to ask the parents of school age if they would consent to there children be looked upon in the toilet? And also if they would demand that they be told in advance if it is going to occur?

So go and do it and don't just theorize in your lazy chairs, beards and cigars

Basil
03-03-2009, 05:39 PM
I challenge all you bods to ask the parents of school age if they would consent to there children be looked upon in the toilet? And also if they would demand that they be told in advance if it is going to occur?

So go and do it and don't just theorize in your lazy chairs, beards and cigars
Peter, I have explained this before elsewehere. A person's right to privacy does not start and stop at the bog door. It is not as cut and dry as that. There is nothing mystical about a bog door written into law. You need to disabuse yourself of this idea - pronto.

It is true that there are many expectations of privacy in bedrooms, toilets and all manner of places, but none of those expectations are absolute.

Consider this advice between would-be crims: "Hey dude, when you're gonna mess up, do it behind a bog door - the cops and the authorities aren't alowed in. They can bust in the front door to your home, they can check out your bedroom while you're in it, they can raid your bank account but they can't peek over the bog door - that's what they told me in the Toolbox and blokes are f**kwits real clever an' they know stuff."

OK so you get the idea about the 'Magical Bog Door' not really being that magical. Perhaps now you want to talk about the police having special powers whereas other people don't, like teachers or chess arbiters?

Consider a school toilet cubicle with the door unlocked but clearly occupied. Does the fact that someone is merely standing behind that door generate the magical bog door defence you espouse? Is a person in authority (say a teacher) permitted to push the door open? For argument's sake, let's say no.

What about if a teacher sees two sets of feet behind the toilet door and can smell hashish. The door is unlocked. Is the bog door a magical barrier that cannot be pushed open? Perhaps it can be pushed open, but only if discussion is attempted first. Perhaps it can be pushed open anyway? Perhaps the expectation of privacy is lost when two sets of feet and/ or hashish is detected. Perhaps the expectation is lost simply when the door isn't locked/ closed. You tell me.

What about a closed door and sounds of fighting? Do we need to call the police to gain entry or at least have a look? Do we need to yell over the top of the door to a person in obvious distress to shut up long enough for us to establish permission to peek or open?

The whole shooting match comes down to authority and reasonable cause. There is no Magical Bog Door. There is no Magical Bedroom Door. There are no magical doors.

OK, what about one set of feet. At a chess tournament. Multiple toilet visits in a short period of time. No zipping or flushing. Frankly I can't say. The reason I can't say is because I wasn't there and I don't know what else occurred in mitigation or substantiation of the action. And guess what? Neither do you. Were there electronic sounds? Was there a discussion prior to the peeking? Was the peeking limited to just visual contact with the face? Who knows? You don't.

Now AFAIK there was no nudity, but there was cheating. What's the problem - IN THIS INSTANCE? We are talking about this instance, are't we? Or are you hyperventilating about other future incidents that have never occurred?

You need to construct an argument that doesn't include a magical bog door.
You need to construct an argument that doesn't involve imaginary outraged parents.
You need to construct an argument that doesn't invent law.

I need a cigarette.

Spiny Norman
03-03-2009, 05:58 PM
I, The Snail King, being of sound mind, hereby nominate the preceding post of Gunner's for the classic posts competition!

eclectic
03-03-2009, 06:02 PM
I, The Snail King, being of sound mind, hereby nominate the preceding post of Gunner's for the classic posts competition!


I need a cigarette

relapse??? :naughty:

i oppose the motion on account of his last sentence

Denis_Jessop
03-03-2009, 07:16 PM
Gunner: you don't need a cigarette - you only think you do. It's all in the mind folks. You can have one, and one only, after the Arsenal's next home win in the EPL. :)

DJ

antichrist
03-03-2009, 09:28 PM
Gunner, we can talk forever, I do appreciate your points without conceding. But still the authority must lie in the children and their parents accepting that suspicious bods will be peeped at.

So again I ask, without us all repeating ourselves, to go and ask some parents what their opinion is, is that too much to ask?

Go on actually ask some - I have.

Basil
03-03-2009, 09:50 PM
So again I ask, without us all repeating ourselves, to go and ask some parents what their opinion is, is that too much to ask?

Go on actually ask some - I have.
I'm a parent. I have no issue with what has occurred. Some parents may have issues. That is fine. Those parents can withdraw their children if they wish. We are talking about a single, controlled, known instance of an event. I would suggest that any parent who is giving you a panicky response is either an alarmist fool or more likely, simply misinformed.

Kevin Bonham
03-03-2009, 10:04 PM
The opinion of clueless clowns on the toolbox is as always irrelevant.

This statement so rankled Arrognat-One that he placed Bill and me in the "Admonished Users" group over there for a week (a status that has relatively little effect on our use of the place and no impact on our behaviour but does allow AO to pointlessly inflate his postcount by announcing it). I have resisted the temptation to respond in kind to his guilt-by-association principle by again evicting ursoingr8 from the Coffee Lounge.

Anyway, some posters there are asserting that the action was illegal, and some here have also asked if it might have been. However, none of these legal eagles have been able to state what law it would breach if so. I would be interested to see what law they consider was breached in investigating the matter.

antichrist
03-03-2009, 10:12 PM
This statement so rankled Arrognat-One that he placed Bill and me in the "Admonished Users" group over there for a week (a status that has relatively little effect on our use of the place and no impact on our behaviour but does allow AO to pointlessly inflate his postcount by announcing it). I have resisted the temptation to respond in kind to his guilt-by-association principle by again evicting ursoingr8 from the Coffee Lounge.

Anyway, some posters there are asserting that the action was illegal, and some here have also asked if it might have been. However, none of these legal eagles have been able to state what law it would breach if so. I would be interested to see what law they consider was breached in investigating the matter.

I am not trying to answer which law etc (if any) but we know that rules have been introduced that a stranger can not even take photos of children in a public place without the parents permission - well peeping over toilet walls would seem a lot more invasive that taking shots of fully clothed children.

If there is no law and if we had a few wrong calls or complaints I am sure that a law would be quickly made up.

Even though I live by the law that any publicity is good publicity I would draw the line that that type of pubilcity would do us any good.

Rincewind
03-03-2009, 10:17 PM
So again I ask, without us all repeating ourselves, to go and ask some parents what their opinion is, is that too much to ask?

I'm a parent of two school age children and have no problems with the arbiters actions.

antichrist
03-03-2009, 10:22 PM
I'm a parent of two school age children and have no problems with the arbiters actions.

Just as you must agree with religious study for your children in schools, don't you think that parents and players should be warned beforehand of the tournament conditons concerning this?

Basil
03-03-2009, 10:33 PM
Just as you must agree with religious study for your children in schools, don't you think that parents and players should be warned beforehand of the tournament conditons concerning this?
Are you suggesting that at the beginning of each tournament, Garvin and Charles Z etc. state:

Please be aware:
1. Please be aware that if your phone rings, we'll forfeit you.
2. Please be aware that if your Johnny visits the loo 6 times and doesn't flush and does other weird stuff and is suspected of cheating we might peek over the toilet wall.
3. Please be aware that if your Johnny is legitimately suspected of bringing an uzi into the hall we reserve our right to pat him down.

As I mentioned in a previous thread, would you care to nominate whether your argument is a legal one or a moral one? Identifying the answer to this one question to yourself will assist you to realise the folly of your position.

Legal or moral? Moral or legal? Step right up folks. Who wants a tilt at legal? Who wants a good ol' moral. Just like the bushfire appeals, yo have to know what's at the root of your motivations. No point a slippin' an' a slidin' between the two and having a bob each way. This is isn't the six o'clock news or the water cooler. What is the basis for the objection?

Rincewind
03-03-2009, 10:49 PM
Just as you must agree with religious study for your children in schools, don't you think that parents and players should be warned beforehand of the tournament conditons concerning this?

I do agree with just about everyone else on this discussion, that you are a clueless trouble maker with out the slightest clue whatsoever.

The player acted suspiciously and the arbiter was justified in investigating the nature of the playrs frequent toilet breaks. The player in question was found to be using the privacy afforded by the toilet door to conceal his cheating.

Fortunately the arbiters acted swiftly, decisively and appropriately to discover the cheating, eject the player and refer the matter to the ACF for disciplinary action.

The system worked, God is in his heaven and all is well with the world. The *only* people with a problem is you, a couple of nameless "parents" you supposedly questioned (no doubt with loaded questions to solicit the response you wanted) and the distant idiotic voices in your head.

Peter, you need to get all your multiple personalities together and collectively just get over it.

antichrist
03-03-2009, 11:04 PM
A/C

I am not trying to answer which law etc (if any) but we know that rules have been introduced that a stranger can not even take photos of children in a public place without the parents permission - well peeping over toilet walls would seem a lot more invasive that taking shots of fully clothed children.

A/C
I still think this point needs to be answered. I will begin asking outsiders soon.





.........and the distant idiotic voices in your head.

Peter, you need to get all your multiple personalities together and collectively just get over it.

How much do I owe you for the consultation?

Basil
03-03-2009, 11:12 PM
I am not trying to answer which law etc (if any) but we know that rules have been introduced that a stranger can not even take photos of children in a public place without the parents permission - well peeping over toilet walls would seem a lot more invasive that taking shots of fully clothed children.
You have confused peep with determine
You have confused secretive with openess
You have confused predatory behaviour with duty
You have confused desire with reasonable cause
You have confused everything!


I still think this point needs to be answered. I will begin asking outsiders soon.
Will you be supplying a copy of the question you are polling with?

antichrist
03-03-2009, 11:20 PM
You have confused peep with determine
You have confused secretive with openess
You have confused predatory behaviour with duty
You have confused desire with reasonable cause
You have confused everything!




God, you make me wonder even how I managed to become a dad. A few more lines and it could become a good Bobby Dylan song - you have no secrets to conceal , how does it feel? to be on your own? like a complete unknown....

antichrist
03-03-2009, 11:58 PM
We could ask you to produce written consent.

just for consistency shouldn't arbiters obtain same from children's parents prior to them being checked in toilets?

This thread is a much more serious issue that over there pm being posted here

Basil
04-03-2009, 12:18 AM
just for consistency shouldn't arbiters obtain same from children's parents prior to them being checked in toilets?
Being asked to demonstrate written consent for publication of a PM is germane to the permissibility of publishing same. There is no requirement to obtain permission from parents to investigate and ensure appropriate conduct* of children (as to their conduct) as parents submitted to that authority upon entry to the event.

*both in relation to obligations as guardian and obligations in conducting chess events.

Basil
04-03-2009, 12:33 AM
but we know that rules have been introduced that a stranger can not even take photos of children in a public place without the parents permission
Are you now suggesting that a teacher cannot investigate the many examples I suggested earlier because of the 'Magical Photography Clause'?

Is this your new 'Magical Door Defence'?

Pete you have to decide whether you are arguing from a legal or moral basis and then you have to construct an argument based on your chosen premise(s). It's insufficient to start the haymakers of
• (imagined) upset (and misinformed) parents,
• irrelevant photography corollaries,
• "dunno about legalities, but ..."

The position falls apart under the slightest of scrutiny. Besides, by throwing these things up, you're doing what you were trying to avoid - and that is go round and round. You need a start and finish to your idea.

Garvinator
04-03-2009, 12:50 AM
Gunner,

I am sorry to say but there is a fatal flaw in your argument and debating 'strategy'. The fatal flaw is that you are not debating with someone who is in the slightest bit concerned about debating the topic at hand or anything that could be considered relevant, but instead is only concerned with making up stuff as he changes the debate each time he gets cornered, or should or I say, each time the bog door comes back and hits him in the ass.

antichrist
04-03-2009, 05:33 AM
And as well Gunnar what are the remaining lines of the masterpiece you are putting together - "you are confused - with a short fuse...."

Igor_Goldenberg
04-03-2009, 09:06 AM
Gunner,

I am sorry to say but there is a fatal flaw in your argument and debating 'strategy'. The fatal flaw is that you are not debating with someone who is in the slightest bit concerned about debating the topic at hand or anything that could be considered relevant, but instead is only concerned with making up stuff as he changes the debate each time he gets cornered, or should or I say, each time the bog door comes back and hits him in the ass.
Do I have your permission to quote it on other threads?

Garvinator
04-03-2009, 09:17 AM
Do I have your permission to quote it on other threads?
Other threads on chesschat? Or other bulletin boards?

If it is other threads on chesschat, sure- no problem. If it is other bulletin boards. Absolutely not.

Rincewind
04-03-2009, 11:53 AM
How much do I owe you for the consultation?

Funnier would have been "how much do we owe you for the consultation?"

The answer is that in your case it is completely pro bono publico.

Basil
04-03-2009, 12:21 PM
Back to Phil's original question.


So is an arbiter permitted to do this, or is he constrained by the conventions of the general populus?
I believe he is permitted. If I were in the arbiter's position and determined a peep was in order, I'd be taking at least one other adult/ official with me.


Is a male arbiter able to ask another female who isn't an arbiter to check on a female in similar circumstances? I think that is one boundary that I don't want to cross. :)
(As a male) I would not be checking on female players under any circumstances that I can think of.

Desmond
04-03-2009, 12:33 PM
Casinos have cameras in the dunnies to detect cheats don't they? Same principle.

antichrist
06-03-2009, 08:27 PM
The two males who have replied in the affirmative that their children could be checked, could they please consult their children's mothers to see if they agree. A mate of mine today told me that even if seems very obvious cheating now way would he permit peeping.

It still has not been answered (that I can see) that there should be the players and parents consent that the tourney will be played under such conditions. Such a simple request could prevent such potentially big nasty problems.

You people/parents in the chess world may be a lot more outstanding than a player's parent who is not in the chess world.

Still love youse all - even Whacko Jacko still does - he said it this morning.

antichrist
08-03-2009, 04:05 PM
I am still waiting for our chess male parents to consult their female counterpart if they would also agree to their children being spied upon in the toilets.

And why have not our chess mothers on the BB opened their mouths up? For nay or aye

Basil
08-03-2009, 06:51 PM
SWAMBO (melina, mother and wife) is across the issue. She has no issues at all - except with the beat-up :whistle:

Bill Gletsos
08-03-2009, 07:16 PM
SWAMBO (melina, mother and wife) is across the issue. She has no issues at all - except with the beat-up :whistle:Antichrist involved in a beat-up.
Surely not. :whistle:

Phil Bourke
09-03-2009, 11:15 AM
Sorry Pete, you seem to be a lone voice in the wind here.

I have checked with parents of children that I semi-coach etc, I have even checked with some school teachers and all opinions that I have gathered is that if a person of authority thinks that there is unwanted behaviour occurring within a toilet cubicle, or anywhere else for the record, then that person compeled to inspect that cubicle via whatever means is necessary. The only caution, that was nearly universal, was that in any case where this action was deemed necessary, to do so in the company of another adult to ensure that nothing inappropriate can occur or be alleged without supporting evidence to back up your side of the story.

billross
10-03-2009, 06:16 AM
Sorry Pete, you seem to be a lone voice in the wind here.

I have checked with parents of children that I semi-coach etc, I have even checked with some school teachers and all opinions that I have gathered is that if a person of authority thinks that there is unwanted behaviour occurring within a toilet cubicle, or anywhere else for the record, then that person compeled to inspect that cubicle via whatever means is necessary. The only caution, that was nearly universal, was that in any case where this action was deemed necessary, to do so in the company of another adult to ensure that nothing inappropriate can occur or be alleged without supporting evidence to back up your side of the story.
Very sound advice Phil. This should be included in the arbiters' procedure manual.
Bill

eclectic
10-03-2009, 10:48 AM
a little aside here; apropos "spying" on people in toilets i noticed that at the begonia the men's toilets had the room number ... 007 :uhoh:

Kevin Bonham
10-03-2009, 04:50 PM
The only caution, that was nearly universal, was that in any case where this action was deemed necessary, to do so in the company of another adult to ensure that nothing inappropriate can occur or be alleged without supporting evidence to back up your side of the story.

Sounds like very good advice.

ER
10-03-2009, 06:47 PM
Parents were very supportive of Phil's suggestion during a discussion yesterday at Begonia, as they were supportive of the action taken by the arbiter in the actual case. One suggested two parent representatives - one female and one male - to assist the arbiter during tournaments.
One suggested that immediate action should be taken immediately, "let's forget about chess cheating for a sec" the parent said. "Let's imagine an illegal as well as dangerous activity - such as drug taking in the toilets... the police should be called, but till they arrived a child's life could be in danger... to hell with political correctnes" the parent concluded, "I would kick the door in myself and whoever doubted my action would be welcome to come and talk to me about it"!

antichrist
13-03-2009, 02:19 PM
Sorry Pete, you seem to be a lone voice in the wind here.

I have checked with parents of children that I semi-coach etc, I have even checked with some school teachers and all opinions that I have gathered is that if a person of authority thinks that there is unwanted behaviour occurring within a toilet cubicle, or anywhere else for the record, then that person compeled to inspect that cubicle via whatever means is necessary. The only caution, that was nearly universal, was that in any case where this action was deemed necessary, to do so in the company of another adult to ensure that nothing inappropriate can occur or be alleged without supporting evidence to back up your side of the story.

Than surely there should be notices or a public announcement that visits to toilets may be subjected to arbitars peering over the wall. It may draw some laughs but if Woollies do warnings about checking bags than surely peeping over toilet walls is a more serious invasion of privacy.

From the beginning I could imagine the big headlines about someone suing the Chess Fed or similar about trauma their kid suffered when being peeped upon without warning.

Rincewind
13-03-2009, 05:21 PM
Than surely there should be notices or a public announcement that visits to toilets may be subjected to arbitars peering over the wall.

Nope your idea is very silly and has been thoroughly dealt with. Please refrain from repeating nonsense. We have to endure enough with just your original nonsense without this unwarranted repetition.

antichrist
15-03-2009, 10:42 AM
Nope your idea is very silly and has been thoroughly dealt with. Please refrain from repeating nonsense. We have to endure enough with just your original nonsense without this unwarranted repetition.

well in yesterday's newspaper it states how a school principal asked a student if he could check his bags for drugs before he checked - my mate never and lost his job over it coz he did not get permission first. If I end up being correct over this will you apologise?

Rincewind
15-03-2009, 11:11 AM
well in yesterday's newspaper it states how a school principal asked a student if he could check his bags for drugs before he checked - my mate never and lost his job over it coz he did not get permission first. If I end up being correct over this will you apologise?

As you have been continually wrong in this thread and have failed to apologise why would you expect anyone show you that courtesy?

You have asked people to talk to parents, talk to mums talk to dads and ask them their opinions on the matter. You were just clutching and straws but to satisfy your predilection several people did ask parents as you requested. The overwhelming opinion was that in the case in question the arbiter and deputy arbiter acted appropriately.

Now will you apologise for maintaining the silly moral position that warnings should appear on tournament entry forms? Something along the lines of...


I antichrist, hereby apologise to the posters of chess chat and the chess public is general for wasting everyone's time with my silly rants and dubious legal arguments by analogy on the matter of the junior found using a computer to cheat in the Australian Open support event. I wish to apologise in particular to the arbiter and deputy arbiter whose actions have been vindicated by the weight of overwhelming support from the chess public including the parents of chess playing children.

Denis_Jessop
15-03-2009, 01:36 PM
The trouble with AC is that, unlike most of us here, he takes things too seriously and gets them wrong to boot. Compare post #196 on the Toolbox Detox thread. :D

DJ

antichrist
15-03-2009, 05:27 PM
The trouble with AC is that, unlike most of us here, he takes things too seriously and gets them wrong to boot. Compare post #196 on the Toolbox Detox thread. :D

DJ

Are you alleging that I wear my heart on my sleeve and my sleeve is dipped in poop?

I just checked out post 196, I had already editied out the Israeli analogy so that KB could not bar me - is that what you meant. No one seems to respect or appreciate my analogies. LIke Howard's HCDs

Basil
15-03-2009, 07:23 PM
No one seems to respect or appreciate my analogies. LIke Howard's HCDs
It's a hard knock life, Peter :lol:

antichrist
17-03-2009, 06:19 PM
I have just checked out the NSWCA contitution and Ethics statement, and I can't find where it states or gives strong implication that an arbitar may peer over toilet walls to check that players are not cheating - nor does it state anything about invading privacy. So on what grounds can such checking take place?

Bill Gletsos
17-03-2009, 06:38 PM
I have just checked out the NSWCA contitution and Ethics statement, and I can't find where it states or gives strong implication that an arbitar may peer over toilet walls to check that players are not cheating - nor does it state anything about invading privacy. So on what grounds can such checking take place?The NSWCA Constsitution has nothing to do with it.

It is covered by the FIDE Laws of Chess.

Article 13.1 - The arbiter shall see that the Laws of Chess are strictly observed.

In case you hadnt realised cheating is against the rules.

antichrist
17-03-2009, 06:45 PM
The NSWCA Constsitution has nothing to do with it.

It is covered by the FIDE Laws of Chess.

Article 13.1 - The arbiter shall see that the Laws of Chess are strictly observed.

In case you hadnt realised cheating is against the rules.

But as I mentioned in the other thread (One on One with the Prez) the Dept of Consumer Affairs are only concerned with what is written in the NSWCA constitution. Because that is what relevant in sorting this issue out. STick to this thread and I will delete other post.

According to the Dept the NSWCA constitution is relevant.

Kevin Bonham
17-03-2009, 06:47 PM
But as I mentioned in the other thread (One on One with the Prez) the Dept of Consumer Affairs are only concerned with what is written in the NSWCA constitution.

So? What standing do the Department of Consumer Affairs have relevant to this issue?

antichrist
17-03-2009, 06:56 PM
So? What standing do the Department of Consumer Affairs have relevant to this issue?

Well in NSW if someone has a consumer complaint that is where they go to. Chess tourney participants are consumers in that they pay for a service, just like going to Woollies. If Woollies think that they have been cheated there is a procedure they must go through, well it is the same for chess tourneys. Everyone has rights whether they are cheating or not.

As the NSWCA is a registered association they come under the authority of the Dept of Consumer Affairs. I am following their advice in asking this info and will report back to them.

Desmond
17-03-2009, 07:19 PM
Well in NSW if someone has a consumer complaint that is where they go to. Chess tourney participants are consumers in that they pay for a service, just like going to Woollies. If Woollies think that they have been cheated there is a procedure they must go through, well it is the same for chess tourneys. Everyone has rights whether they are cheating or not.

As the NSWCA is a registered association they come under the authority of the Dept of Consumer Affairs. I am following their advice in asking this info and will report back to them.Tell 'em next time they are peering over the wall at me taking a dump to pass me a spare roll, just in case, and make it the 4-ply lavish stuff if they don't mind.

Kevin Bonham
17-03-2009, 07:30 PM
Well in NSW if someone has a consumer complaint that is where they go to. Chess tourney participants are consumers in that they pay for a service, just like going to Woollies.

Chessplayers are not consumers, they are entrants. It is like the difference between someone paying to go watch a sport (that spectator being a consumer) and someone competing in that sport and paying a fee to do so (that person being an entrant).

Can you show me any examples of a consumer affairs body ruling on a sporting administration complaint by an entrant?

Basil
17-03-2009, 07:38 PM
I have just checked out the NSWCA contitution and Ethics statement, and I can't find where it states or gives strong implication that an arbitar may peer over toilet walls...
Nor will you find anything about holding aging hippies' heads in the toilet bowl while flushing if found to be annoying on a bulletin board, but it might happen ... ;)

Bill Gletsos
17-03-2009, 07:40 PM
But as I mentioned in the other thread (One on One with the Prez) the Dept of Consumer Affairs are only concerned with what is written in the NSWCA constitution. Because that is what relevant in sorting this issue out. STick to this thread and I will delete other post.

According to the Dept the NSWCA constitution is relevant.I have no interest in your dribblings to the Dept of Consumer Affairs and have absolutely no confidence in you having even explained the situation correctly to the Dept.

Garvinator
17-03-2009, 08:39 PM
I can not believe any one is even entertaining any of ac's crap anymore. Why has he not been banned or at least been warned continuing on with this garbage.

Denis_Jessop
17-03-2009, 09:17 PM
One way of handling stupid posts of the AC kind is just to ignore them. If X makes a totally stupid post and nobody replies he is left high and dry with nothing more to do. These people feed off replies to their nonsense becoming more and more irrational, weaving from side to side, moving through 180 degrees and the like just to satisfy their craving for attention. FG7 and Phat are two others of that kind who now are mercifully gone from our presence though they occasionally spout garbage in another place.

DJ

antichrist
18-03-2009, 05:48 PM
One way of handling stupid posts of the AC kind is just to ignore them. If X makes a totally stupid post and nobody replies he is left high and dry with nothing more to do. These people feed off replies to their nonsense becoming more and more irrational, weaving from side to side, moving through 180 degrees and the like just to satisfy their craving for attention. FG7 and Phat are two others of that kind who now are mercifully gone from our presence though they occasionally spout garbage in another place.

DJ
Just because I introduce more arguments means that I have dropped my original arguments. As one gets further into an issue one sees new dimensions. Philosophy is full of it, never-ending points, just like chess variations. Because people may oppose my original arguments means that I have dropped them, but I am going into new areas that have arisen.

It is not attention seeking at all nor any craving. Just a pure simple belief that I feel that I am correct on.

I spoke to Peter Parr about it yesterday and he knows the situation completely, I could not con him and did not try to, and he agreed that arbitars should not be peeping over toilet walls to check out players possibly cheating. I suggested to him that players be checked before going into toilets and upon coming out, he agreed with this procedure.

Just because you disagree with my position does not give you the permission to be rude about it. You demean yourself. Just shut up and see where it leads to.

antichrist
18-03-2009, 05:50 PM
I can not believe any one is even entertaining any of ac's crap anymore. Why has he not been banned or at least been warned continuing on with this garbage.

Well Mr New Arbitar, where do you get your authority from to check out players in a toilet? Tell me exactly where from so that I can argue the point with Dept of Fair Trading.

You never betray your roots - a red-necked Queenslander

antichrist
18-03-2009, 05:52 PM
Nor will you find anything about holding aging hippies' heads in the toilet bowl while flushing if found to be annoying on a bulletin board, but it might happen ... ;)

You are a pink-necked Queenslander but I love you. Watch it or Mike may flush your HCDs instead.

antichrist
18-03-2009, 05:53 PM
Chessplayers are not consumers, they are entrants. It is like the difference between someone paying to go watch a sport (that spectator being a consumer) and someone competing in that sport and paying a fee to do so (that person being an entrant).

Can you show me any examples of a consumer affairs body ruling on a sporting administration complaint by an entrant?

One does not have to show such coz there is always a first time. And I would not like a chess establishment to be a precedant.

Re your first para, at face value they are prepared to listen.

antichrist
18-03-2009, 05:54 PM
I have no interest in your dribblings to the Dept of Consumer Affairs and have absolutely no confidence in you having even explained the situation correctly to the Dept.

This "idiot" will come back to you later - love you too.

Bill Gletsos
18-03-2009, 06:14 PM
I spoke to Peter Parr about it yesterday and he knows the situation completely,Parr wasnt there when it happened.
For him to know it completely he would need to have spoken directly to the arbiter or assistant arbiter.
Did he get a first hand from the arbiter or did he get it second hand from someone else?

Did he speak directly to the arbiter Laura Moylan?
Did he speak directly to the assistant arbiter Ronald Scott?

antichrist
18-03-2009, 06:25 PM
Parr wasnt there when it happened.
For him to know it completely he would need to have spoken directly to the arbiter or assistant arbiter.
Did he get a first hand from the arbiter or did he get it second hand from someone else?

Did he speak directly to the arbiter Laura Moylan?
Did he speak directly to the assistant arbiter Ronald Scott?

I was mainly making the point that I did not give him info concerning this. So cannot be accused of misrepresenting etc.

But the basic point can be debated, i.e., the method of obtaining evidence, it is not necessary to know who spoketh to whom.

Last night late on ABC tv there was a program on torture concerning 9/11. The victim was smeared with menstrual blood and it was left to dry all night. I could image a similar thing happening to an arbitar if they proceeded to look over the toilet wall at certain contestants at a certain period of the cycle.

Adamski
18-03-2009, 07:21 PM
Tell 'em next time they are peering over the wall at me taking a dump to pass me a spare roll, just in case, and make it the 4-ply lavish stuff if they don't mind.LOL. And there have been a few by Gunner too. Even an admission from RW that God is in His heaven!

Basil
18-03-2009, 08:18 PM
Tell 'em next time they are peering over the wall ... and make it the 4-ply
I think even hand-held can calculate at better than that these days!

Kevin Bonham
18-03-2009, 09:09 PM
One does not have to show such coz there is always a first time.

No there isn't. :hand:

peter_parr
19-03-2009, 11:48 AM
I spoke to Peter Parr about it yesterday and he knows the situation completely, I could not con him and did not try to, and he agreed that arbiters should not be peeping over toilet walls to check out players possibly cheating.

This statement is false. The question he put to me was

“would you personally peep over toilet walls to check if a junior player was possibly cheating?”

My reply was “no”.

I did speak to the arbiter about the matter during the event congratulating him on catching a player cheating by using a computer during his game. At no time have I been critical of any arbiter or official in this matter.

In my opinion the arbiters did a very good job throughout the tournament and the ACF two year ban was appropriate.

Peter Parr
FIDE International Arbiter 1978-

antichrist
19-03-2009, 05:25 PM
I feel I have to do another Arthur Beetson like I performed the St George Comp, i.e., carry half the opposition kicking and screaming, over the try line with me to score a goal.

Sorry about that misrepres Peter - carelessness.

Rincewind
19-03-2009, 05:48 PM
Fortunately Peter Parr has the wherewithal to check on what AC says he said. One wonders what misrepresentation and carelessness may take place for those who don't check on AC reports as being their opinion.

In this instance I'm thinking particularly of the unnamed mums from post #19. :hmm:

antichrist
19-03-2009, 05:55 PM
Fortunately Peter Parr has the wherewithal to check on what AC says he said. One wonders what misrepresentation and carelessness may take place for those who don't check on AC reports as being their opinion.

In this instance I'm thinking particularly of the unnamed mums from post #19. :hmm:

I still have some dry gunpowder for a few more rounds.

Expecting me to apologise is like expecting someone to resign a game when ahead - ridiculous - though I did offer to resign against Kaitlin when ahead.

antichrist
19-03-2009, 06:14 PM
No there isn't. :hand:

And they thought that bombing Iraq was a good idea at the time.

Just coz something is popular and sounds good does not necessarily mean that it is. Oh we caught the baddie out in the loo - aren't we tops.

Denis_Jessop
19-03-2009, 07:15 PM
And they thought that bombing Iraq was a good idea at the time.

Just coz something is popular and sounds good does not necessarily mean that it is. Oh we caught the baddie out in the loo - aren't we tops.

How long do we have to go on with this nonsense.

First (off topic) who with any sense thought bombing Iraq was good at "the time" or any other time?

Secondly, the action taken in this matter was not taken because it was though to be popular or sounded (?) good. It was taken because the person in question was suspected of cheating and it was found that he was cheating.

AC, your post is a load of garbage. Please go away and get obsessed by something else, preferably unrelated to chess.

DJ

Kevin Bonham
19-03-2009, 07:17 PM
Just coz something is popular and sounds good does not necessarily mean that it is.

This has nothing to do with arguing about what is popular and good and everything to do with an apparent complete lack of legal precedent for your bizarre and confused notion that this is a consumer affairs issue.

PS Give the trolling a rest. Shifting from Israel to Iraq analogies won't do you any good at all - I am an equal opportunity deleter when it comes to that sort of rubbish. And keep this toilet tirade to the two threads where it has been most discussed - dragging it onto other threads to troll as you did twice yesterday is likely to result in another suspension if I see it again any time soon.

Bill Gletsos
19-03-2009, 08:13 PM
Fortunately Peter Parr has the wherewithal to check on what AC says he said. One wonders what misrepresentation and carelessness may take place for those who don't check on AC reports as being their opinion.

In this instance I'm thinking particularly of the unnamed mums from post #19. :hmm:Or his misrepresentations to the Dept of Fair Trading. :hand:

ER
19-03-2009, 08:49 PM
By the way, what are the distinctions (if any) amongst international arbiters? I noticed an FA and IA and in Peter Parr's case an FIA!
Also can we have a list of all our arbiters with international titles?

Denis_Jessop
19-03-2009, 09:17 PM
By the way, what are the distinctions (if any) amongst international arbiters? I noticed an FA and IA and in Peter Parr's case an FIA!
Also can we have a list of all our arbiters with international titles?

This is the list from the FIDE website but it hasn't been up-dated to include any FIDE Arbiters


ID Number Name Country Title B-Year
3203972 Bekker, Gary David AUS IA 1968
3205215 Eime, Roland Anders AUS IA
3205223 Frew, John Dr. AUS IA
3205231 Koshnitsky, Evelyn AUS IA
3205240 Lyons, Jason AUS IA
3205266 Margan, Susan AUS IA
3205274 Needleman, Morris AUS IA
3205282 Parr, Peter AUS IA 1946
3205290 Perrin, Kevin AUS IA
3204995 Rogers, Cathy AUS IA
13501151 Sorokina, Anastasia AUS IA 1980
3205304 Thomas, Alan AUS IA
3202500 Weeks, Manuel William AUS IA
3205088 Zworestine, Charles AUS IA 1966

DJ

Bill Gletsos
19-03-2009, 09:31 PM
By the way, what are the distinctions (if any) amongst international arbiters? I noticed an FA and IA and in Peter Parr's case an FIA!There is no such title as an FIA title.

Parr is an IA.

Bill Gletsos
19-03-2009, 09:32 PM
This is the list from the FIDE website but it hasn't been up-dated to include any FIDE ArbitersI noticed that too.

Australia's only FA's at this time are Garvin Gray and Graeme Gardiner.

eclectic
19-03-2009, 09:35 PM
does australia have any international organisers? (IO)

Bill Gletsos
19-03-2009, 09:43 PM
does australia have any international organisers? (IO)Yes, Brian Jones.

ER
19-03-2009, 10:00 PM
Thanks all for the responses! That's all very useful to know!

antichrist
08-04-2009, 03:56 PM
I recently got another free informal legal opinion re what the arbitar did concerning peeping over the toilet wall to detect cheating.

It is illegal but there is no specific law against it, if that makes sense. The victim if wanted action against the perpentrator would have to get police to press charges.

Basil
08-04-2009, 04:04 PM
It is illegal but there is no specific law against it
What a load of cocked-up balls!


The victim if wanted action against the perpentrator would have to get police to press charges.
Duh! And they would no doubt get nowhere.

Again you can't get past the idea of the magic door. You've got to let it go, Peter. THE.ACT.OF.LOOKING.OVER.A.TOILET.DOOR.IS.NOT.ILLEG AL.IN.ITSELF.

Garvinator
08-04-2009, 04:14 PM
It is illegal but there is no specific law against it, if that makes sense. The victim if wanted action against the perpentrator would have to get police to press charges.
You idiot!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!
The police do not press charges. The police arrest and detain people. It is respective state departments of public prosecutions that decides if they want to charge people based on the law and the chances on a conviction beyond a reasonable doubt.

antichrist
08-04-2009, 04:30 PM
What a load of cocked-up balls!


Duh! And they would no doubt get nowhere.

Again you can't get past the idea of the magic door. You've got to let it go, Peter. THE.ACT.OF.LOOKING.OVER.A.TOILET.DOOR.IS.NOT.ILLEG AL.IN.ITSELF.

I have often been arrested whilst demonstrating, but when they get me to the copshop and conferring with elders they realise there is nothing really to charge me with as I did not break any laws, so then release me.

There was no law against the demo but could charge me with disturbing the peace or hindrance (like on this board) whatever, that sort of thing.

As Qld would not permit that nude bike ride demo for the environment I am thinking up and doing a lone streaker one on my bike, just one block over the border at Tweed and end up back in NSW where safe. That will teach them in more way than one.

I don't know if there is a specfic law against nude bike riding but they get me for disturbing the peace or obscenity or misleading advertising or obcessity or fantasicism

antichrist
08-04-2009, 04:34 PM
You idiot!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!
The police do not press charges. The police arrest and detain people. It is respective state departments of public prosecutions that decides if they want to charge people based on the law and the chances on a conviction beyond a reasonable doubt.

Of course that procedure would take place. I was just stating the first procedure who would be involved.

If I may ask GG, would you personally look over the wall if you thought there was cheating taking place, and if so, should there be warning signs outside the toilets as there are at woollies, sorry to be repetitious?

Kevin Bonham
08-04-2009, 08:29 PM
Moved two lines of discussion started by AC and not relevant to the topic of this thread to new threads.


I recently got another free informal legal opinion re what the arbitar did concerning peeping over the toilet wall to detect cheating.

It is illegal but there is no specific law against it, if that makes sense.

If you got that advice for free you got severely ripped off and should ask for your $0 back.

The definition of something being illegal is that there is at least one specific law against it. If there isn't, it is not illegal. :hand:



I have often been arrested whilst demonstrating, but when they get me to the copshop and conferring with elders they realise there is nothing really to charge me with as I did not break any laws, so then release me.

If you didn't break any law then that means your actions weren't illegal and the arrest was a mistake.
If you did break a law your actions were illegal (unless the law is invalid), but if the police still released you anyway it's probably because they couldn't be bothered pursuing the matter.


I don't know if there is a specfic law against nude bike riding but they get me for disturbing the peace or obscenity or misleading advertising or obcessity or fantasicism

Indecent exposure would cover it surely. Especially in your case. :lol:

Rincewind
08-04-2009, 08:35 PM
The definition of something being illegal is that there is at least one specific law against it. If there isn't, it is not illegal. :hand:

This is only the rational person's definition. I think ac is working out of a different dictionary.

In fairness to his pro bono council we should give them the benefit of the doubt and assume ac has probably misrepresented what they said.

Kevin Bonham
08-04-2009, 09:50 PM
In fairness to his pro bono council we should give them the benefit of the doubt and assume ac has probably misrepresented what they said.

I think that is a very safe assumption.

antichrist
09-04-2009, 02:33 PM
This is only the rational person's definition. I think ac is working out of a different dictionary.

In fairness to his pro bono council we should give them the benefit of the doubt and assume ac has probably misrepresented what they said.

For your info I informed the lawyer of my analogies re woollies etc and he stated that that do hold up but that is not the law, there are deficiencies in the law. If it was not "illegal" in the sense that I have offered do you think perves could get away with perving over toilet walls everywhere.

Yes it is illegal in spite of there not being a law specific against it.

This instance shows that we do need a Bill and an Adam and Steve of Rights - the right of privacy whilst in the loo.

antichrist
09-04-2009, 02:34 PM
Of course that procedure would take place. I was just stating the first procedure who would be involved.

If I may ask GG, would you personally look over the wall if you thought there was cheating taking place, and if so, should there be warning signs outside the toilets as there are at woollies, sorry to be repetitious?

Now come on GG I am waiting for your reply - don't renege coz you have had a big mouth so far.

Garvinator
13-04-2009, 03:17 PM
Now that ac has been tossed for two weeks, anyone care to debate this properly?

eclectic
13-04-2009, 03:19 PM
just close the thread

Garvinator
13-04-2009, 03:25 PM
just close the thread
I have thought that some of the issues that had the potential to be discussed in this thread deserved discussion, it was just that I was not going to entertain ac's delusional rantings for a second, or 'go on the record' with answers about what I might do in a given situation given ac's track record of beat-ups, mis-representations and other mis-adventures.

eclectic
13-04-2009, 03:28 PM
ask the mods to prune off the rantings? ;)

Garvinator
13-04-2009, 03:37 PM
ask the mods to prune off the rantings? ;)
That would get rid of 90% of the thread :P

ElevatorEscapee
13-04-2009, 05:19 PM
Just make sure you are extremely careful of the bike chain when doing your pushbike impersonation of Lady Godiva AC! :lol:

antichrist
27-04-2009, 06:34 PM
As no arbitar has come forward to volunteer to take the same action as the arbitar who looked over the toilet wall I will take it as a given that no arbitar would copy such action and therefore deemed unacceptable. Case closed, thank you all very much.

Kevin Bonham
27-04-2009, 06:48 PM
I happen to have it on good authoritaaah that the arbiter who checked could tell that the player was walking backwards and forwards within the cubicle and not actually seated on the toilet. Does that change your view on this AC, or does it just take the wind out of the sails of your trolling?

antichrist
27-04-2009, 06:56 PM
I happen to have it on good authoritaaah that the arbiter who checked could tell that the player was walking backwards and forwards within the cubicle and not actually seated on the toilet. Does that change your view on this AC, or does it just take the wind out of the sails of your trolling?

As I am attempting to complete a chess game without been barred, and you declaring that half time against a champ is sufficient for me (what praise) I will keep my mouth shut. Coz some MOds here like mis-interpreting me and barring me.

But strictly speaking KB it still does not justify it. The arbitar could have knocked on the door and asked the player to come out very soon. Also the arbitar could have asked the player to empty his pockets, bag etc to be allowed back into the competition. This is why the warning sign about being searched is so important. It would also act as a detterent. So I still believ there was a far better method than what took place. Notice when there cheating allegations in those big overseas games they did not look over the toilet waLL. It should be obvious by now that I am not trolling.

eclectic
27-04-2009, 07:03 PM
it is trolling becuase if the person concerned still felt aggrieved they could appeal or take legal action if their counsel deemed it appropriate

as for this forum the matter ought to be considered CLOSED

Kevin Bonham
27-04-2009, 07:06 PM
The arbitar could have knocked on the door and asked the player to come out very soon.

Yeah, rrrrrrrright! That gives the player reason to believe his trap has been sprung and may well give him time to quickly erase the evidence from the device he is using.


Also the arbitar could have asked the player to empty his pockets, bag etc to be allowed back into the competition.

But all you might find out then is that the player has a device that is capable of playing chess (as by the way are quite a few mobile phones these days). It wouldn't prove the device had been used.


Notice when there cheating allegations in those big overseas games they did not look over the toilet waLL.

Those accusations were generally made after the game or did not involve cheating in the toilet. Which cases did you have in mind?

antichrist
27-04-2009, 07:09 PM
it is trolling becuase if the person concerned still felt aggrieved they could appeal or take legal action if their counsel deemed it appropriate

as for this forum the matter ought to be considered CLOSED

I have already stated that legal action by the player (or authorities) is a gray area and maybe expensive, so that is not a good or fair option.

Why are you arrogant in wanting to close it. GG has stated there are issues he would like to discuss but no one came to the party. A lone voice does mean it is incorrect. Don't attempt to snub out someone else's freedom of speech.

antichrist
27-04-2009, 07:14 PM
Yeah, rrrrrrrright! That gives the player reason to believe his trap has been sprung and may well give him time to quickly erase the evidence from the device he is using.



But all you might find out then is that the player has a device that is capable of playing chess (as by the way are quite a few mobile phones these days). It wouldn't prove the device had been used.



Those accusations were generally made after the game or did not involve cheating in the toilet. Which cases did you have in mind?

I thought there was one allegation of cheating the the players individual area, don't know if in toilet was meant?

The points I mentioned above will discourage the cheating that took place, if they had been in place beforehand the arbitar would have had some options to rely upon instead of being "forced" to peep. In his case because of insufficient protocols etc he could only have asked what I stated, and if the player cleared the tests (even if guilty) then he has to be let off. But the lesson would have been learnt that we must establish protocols before the next comp. It is just bad policy in any area to create a bad precedent. It is bettter to let the guilty one escape, as happens in criminal law etc. Do you think the world is a better place coz USA dropped the bombs on Japan, in the long run I definitely say no, coz now everyone has those weapons and the precedent has been set for exploding them. I can't always think up analogies in chess so must bring up non-chess ones, this is not to provoke.

Kevin Bonham
27-04-2009, 07:17 PM
The points I mentioned above will discourage the cheating that took place, if they had been in place beforehand the arbitar would have had some options to rely upon instead of being "forced" to peep.

Basically the only sufficient protocols to make the whole room cheating-potential-free are metal detectors a la airports. We don't have the resources.


But the lesson would have been learnt that we must establish protocols before the next comp.

Are you offering to pay for them?


Do you think the world is a better place coz USA dropped the bombs on Japan, in the long run I definitely say no, coz now everyone has those weapons and the precedent has been set for exploding them.

Irrelevant. Stay on topic.

antichrist
27-04-2009, 07:24 PM
Basically the only sufficient protocols to make the whole room cheating-potential-free are metal detectors a la airports. We don't have the resources.



Are you offering to pay for them?



Irrelevant. Stay on topic.

Of course we dont use metal detectors but the aspects I mentioned also warning players of frequent leaving of the playing area will be looked upon suspiciously. Just by creating the environament where players know that they are being monitored will mostly do the trick. I don't see why we cant only allow tissues and ashma and only other essentials being on the person and nothing else. Not for lowly com petions and primary school juniors though.
Maybe we cant prevent the most determined from cheating but we can certainly make it difficult for them, that is the best we can hope to do.

antichrist
28-04-2009, 03:45 PM
KB, the best intelligence cannot prevent 9/11 etc so don't expect to prevent all cheating and we can't make games venues a police state to prevent such happening - just like other aspects of society. The very best you can do is search them after such warning signs that this could occur by arbitars.

Kevin Bonham
28-04-2009, 04:07 PM
KB, the best intelligence cannot prevent 9/11 etc so don't expect to prevent all cheating and we can't make games venues a police state to prevent such happening - just like other aspects of society.

Actually the best use of the best intelligence can prevent a great many things.


The very best you can do is search them after such warning signs that this could occur by arbitars.

I don't think even warning signs are necessary. It's a no-brainer that if you behave suspiciously at a sporting event your behaviour may be investigated.


I don't see why we cant only allow tissues and ashma and only other essentials being on the person and nothing else.

I don't see any reason to restrict the innocent.

antichrist
28-04-2009, 04:16 PM
Actually the best use of the best intelligence can prevent a great many things.



I don't think even warning signs are necessary. It's a no-brainer that if you behave suspiciously at a sporting event your behaviour may be investigated.



I don't see any reason to restrict the innocent.

But there is no way that tourney players will be looked upon intelligently so to speak unless it was blatant.

By abusing (so called) arbitar powers by checking toilets it could result in a backlash the other way, that could lead to even barring searchings or being ordered to empty their pockets.

Yes it is a no brainer that suspicious behaviour will be investigated, but it is also a no brainer that a cheeky player will also tell a arbitar to get stuffed if asked to be searched or to empty their pockets if there is not a warning that this could take place. what will the arbitar do then, put him out of the tourney on superstititon? Then the player does reveal the contents of his pocket to his mates, them seeing there was no cheating then turn against the arbitar. This is not far fetched, I know of a few Sydney players who hated some arbitars and would love the chance to have a go at them by exposing them.

There must be the stated protocol, it seems very sensible to me, why to no one else?

Kevin Bonham
28-04-2009, 04:23 PM
By abusing (so called) arbitar powers by checking toilets it could result in a backlash the other way, that could lead to even barring searchings or being ordered to empty their pockets.

?? Not sure what you're saying here.


Yes it is a no brainer that suspicious behaviour will be investigated, but it is also a no brainer that a cheeky player will also tell a arbitar to get stuffed if asked to be searched or to empty their pockets if there is not a warning that this could take place. what will the arbitar do then, put him out of the tourney on superstititon?

No, put him out of the tournament for obstructing the arbiter's attempts to ensure that the Laws of Chess are enforced.


Then the player does reveal the contents of his pocket to his mates, them seeing there was no cheating then turn against the arbitar. This is not far fetched, I know of a few Sydney players who hated some arbitars and would love the chance to have a go at them by exposing them.

If an arbiter is hated by that many players they might rebel against the arbiter for investigating an innocent player in the same situation even if there were warning signs.


There must be the stated protocol, it seems very sensible to me, why to no one else?

Cheating is very rare at our level. Constant attention to it through signs and announcements and so on just gives the matter more oxygen than it deserves and may even encourage more people to try. Best to just deal with it on a case by case basis when it occurs.

antichrist
28-04-2009, 04:33 PM
]
KB
]?? Not sure what you're saying here.
A/C
By going overboard and beyond the pale by peeping over wall it turns people against checking at all, so asking to empty pockets will also be thrown out with bathwater
KB
No, put him out of the tournament for obstructing the arbiter's attempts to ensure that the Laws of Chess are enforced.

A/C
Is there such a rule? Surely that could be appealed against HO level. That is what happens at NSWCA anyway.

You will get a break now as I have used my $2 up

KB
Cheating is very rare at our level. Constant attention to it through signs and announcements and so on just gives the matter more oxygen than it deserves and may even encourage more people to try. Best to just deal with it on a case by case basis when it occurs.[/QUOTE

A/C
Well at a few major internation comps the allegation has been raised and they are higher than us. I think warning signs - only small ones outside toilet door would have a good effect, would make some think twice and realise that authorities aren't dumb

Kevin Bonham
28-04-2009, 05:05 PM
]By going overboard and beyond the pale by peeping over wall it turns people against checking at all,

What is your evidence that this action has this effect?


Is there such a rule?

Article 13.1 requires the arbiter to see that the Laws of Chess are strictly observed while article 13.2 requires the arbiter to act in the best interests of the competition and ensure a good playing environment.


Surely that could be appealed against HO level.

Anything except 10.2s can be appealled but that does not mean the appeal will be succesful.


You will get a break now as I have used my $2 up

$2? You've got tickets on yourself. :lol:


Well at a few major internation comps the allegation has been raised and they are higher than us.

Yes; the stakes are higher at those levels and hence there is both more incentive to cheat and more frustration with losses. But even so it is still a very rare occurrence.


I think warning signs - only small ones outside toilet door would have a good effect, would make some think twice and realise that authorities aren't dumb

Anyone who thought the authorities were dumb should have been swiftly disabused by the handling of the most recent case.

antichrist
29-04-2009, 04:25 PM
I know repeating heavily, but it would not hurt to at least have warning signs re searching clothes or bags, as Woollies have it, and school teachers can't search bags without students permission. Must I go and research the law on this. Isn't just sensible without debate. Self evident. Just a precaution.

And as yet no registered arbitar has stated that they would take the same action, so they cant be too cocky to repeat the experience. We can let matter drop till I do more research.

Kevin Bonham
29-04-2009, 04:37 PM
I know repeating heavily, but it would not hurt to at least have warning signs re searching clothes or bags, as Woollies have it, and school teachers can't search bags without students permission. Must I go and research the law on this. Isn't just sensible without debate. Self evident. Just a precaution.

But no bags were searched in this instance so why are you talking about bag-searching laws?

I've often researched such laws and last I checked (in my state at least) it goes like this. If asked to have your bag searched, you have the technical right to refuse. If the store attempts to prevent you from leaving, and you've stolen nothing, you can get them for wrongful detention. If you refuse a search however (been there done that - usually in protest against stores that search backpacks but not handbags), the store can bar you from its premises, even if it has no evidence that you've taken anything.

The arguments against having warning signs are:
1. They are an inconvenience to organisers
2. They may make players (even those doing the right thing) feel unwelcome
3. They draw attention to the problem of cheating in a way that may encourage players to attempt other ways of cheating.


And as yet no registered arbitar has stated that they would take the same action, so they cant be too cocky to repeat the experience.

Well the only "registered arbiter" (IA/FA) who is regularly discussing issues in this section at the moment is not interested in debating it with you because of all your silly nonsense, so I'm not sure what you were expecting.

antichrist
30-04-2009, 06:49 PM
KB
But no bags were searched in this instance so why are you talking about bag-searching laws?

A/C
Because I am talking about the future - what past is past - and we must try to prevent cheating as well as estabishing a legal protocol that can hold up in law, ie does not infringe their privacy and they have no comeback against arbitars. Just because there was no comeback this occasion does not mean that there will not be in the future. There was a beautiful case of exactly this reported upon in today's SMH but I am not allowwed to draw it in - see how your rules are too strict. And just because the cheat this time was found out does not prevent cheating in the future, a smartie will just not admit it, and there being no warning signs about being searched or bags can be checked he can say "get stuffed" again. So this episode proved nothing, only that our protocols are quite lapse and they are more likely than not to get away with it. That is my interpretation of it.

KB
I've often researched such laws and last I checked (in my state at least) it goes like this. If asked to have your bag searched, you have the technical right to refuse.

A/C
Maybe so in NSW as well, but then there is some justification for the arbitar putting them out of the comp coz they know the protocol beforehand.

KB
If the store attempts to prevent you from leaving, and you've stolen nothing, you can get them for wrongful detention.

A/C
This is irrelevant as we would attempt to detain anyone. They could only attempt to seek damages for being put out of comp, but because the protocol is there and stated the arbitars may hold up. An opinion could be sort on this.

KB
If you refuse a search however (been there done that - usually in protest against stores that search backpacks but not handbags), the store can bar you from its premises, even if it has no evidence that you've taken anything.

A/C
Exactly, the protocol is established and Woollies can act accordingly, just as in my earlier answwer above. The player can probably be safely put out of the comp. even though cheating has not been proven.

So summing up, I can see that there are many advantages in having the protocols and disadvantages in not having them.


KB
The arguments against having warning signs are:
1. They are an inconvenience to organisers

A/C
Not an inconvennience at all, light signs could be made up in advance that could be stuck up outside toilet doors and even inside toilets.

KB
2. They may make players (even those doing the right thing) feel unwelcome

A/C
Not at all, the goodies will be relaxed that they don't have to worry about cheating and the baddies will have second thoughts about cheating.

KB
3. They draw attention to the problem of cheating in a way that may encourage players to attempt other ways of cheating.

A/C
Surely this is sohpistry(?) mumbo jumbo. An excuse when there is no reason.

KB
Well the only "registered arbiter" (IA/FA) who is regularly discussing issues in this section at the moment is not interested in debating it with you because of all your silly nonsense, so I'm not sure what you were expecting.

A/C
Time will tell who will prevail. Anyone can take an arrogant attitude like that but does not prove anything. He has given some credence to my perservance on this matter, otherwise it would not be discussed at all.

Kevin Bonham
30-04-2009, 08:20 PM
Because I am talking about the future - what past is past - and we must try to prevent cheating as well as estabishing a legal protocol that can hold up in law, ie does not infringe their privacy and they have no comeback against arbitars.

You still haven't established that there was a legal issue here, and I'm not convinced that a cheat's right to privacy is infringed just because they are in a cubicle in a case where they are known to be not going to the toilet.


Just because there was no comeback this occasion does not mean that there will not be in the future. There was a beautiful case of exactly this reported upon in today's SMH but I am not allowwed to draw it in - see how your rules are too strict.

What rules? If it is some analogy to do with international politics then your example is probably irrelevant and if not then I am not sure why you are saying it would be against any rules.


And just because the cheat this time was found out does not prevent cheating in the future, a smartie will just not admit it, and there being no warning signs about being searched or bags can be checked he can say "get stuffed" again.

In this case he was caught before he admitted it. But the lack of warning signs does not prevent action being taken. Again, Article 13.2 "The arbiter shall act in the best interest of the competition."


Maybe so in NSW as well, but then there is some justification for the arbitar putting them out of the comp coz they know the protocol beforehand.

So? If a specific case arises where an arbiter strongly suspects a player of cheating and the device is concealed, the arbiter can inform the player that if they do not comply with a proposed search, they will be required to leave the event.


This is irrelevant as we would attempt to detain anyone. They could only attempt to seek damages for being put out of comp, but because the protocol is there and stated the arbitars may hold up. An opinion could be sort on this.

And how would they obtain such damages if there was reason for suspicion and they had refused to co-operate?


Not an inconvennience at all, light signs could be made up in advance that could be stuck up outside toilet doors and even inside toilets.

No, they are an inconvenience to organisers. They are one more thing to remember to organise and bring and use up time putting up.


Not at all, the goodies will be relaxed that they don't have to worry about cheating and the baddies will have second thoughts about cheating.

Many people don't like being monitored and treated like a potential cheat even when they are doing nothing wrong, even if it is supposedly for their own good.


Surely this is sohpistry(?) mumbo jumbo. An excuse when there is no reason.

Hmmm, one might say the same thing about your entire case, so I suspect otherwise. :lol:

antichrist
01-05-2009, 05:31 PM
You still haven't established that there was a legal issue here, and I'm not convinced that a cheat's right to privacy is infringed just because they are in a cubicle in a case where they are known to be not going to the toilet.

A/C
I said we are talking about the future. If a person was genuinely on the dunny (and whether or not also cheating) their privacy may be held to be infringed upon. Only maybe until confirmed.


KB
What rules? If it is some analogy to do with international politics then your example is probably irrelevant and if not then I am not sure why you are saying it would be against any rules.

A/C
Yes it was politics and you can judge whether irrelevant or not. A person appealed to the Britich High Court and was rejected, but aha, he then went to the European Union and he won. It was an international issue. So the arbitar and even Chess ASSoc and/or FIDE may say it is okay, but the law of the land could very well prevail over all, and create a precedent at the same time. As happened in the above-mentioned case.


KB
In this case he was caught before he admitted it. But the lack of warning signs does not prevent action being taken. Again, Article 13.2 "The arbiter shall act in the best interest of the competition."

A/C
But how could HE (of course) act in the best interests if he feels restricted coz of lack of clarity in what HE may or may not do. He may not have the desire or strength of character to confront someone in the toilet (coz cant be absolutely sure of cheating as well) and should not be expected to confront in those circumstances. We know of agressive players and hated arbitars, I do anyway.


KB
So? If a specific case arises where an arbiter strongly suspects a player of cheating and the device is concealed, the arbiter can inform the player that if they do not comply with a proposed search, they will be required to leave the event.

A/C
that is correct if there are the approp warning signs as in woollies and as happens at schools where the approval is also needed.


KB
And how would they obtain such damages if there was reason for suspicion and they had refused to co-operate?

A/C
Because the protocol has not been established (between players and associations) with how to deal with such problems the player can refuse the search, He is then put out, and if that player had a good chance of winning good prize money HE may consider suing. I know has not been done does not mean that will not be done. It happened only yesterday and precedents are always created. And as this is rare occurence there is no precedent of how it would act out.


KB
No, they are an inconvenience to organisers. They are one more thing to remember to organise and bring and use up time putting up.

A/C
Well I have conducted comps of up to 30 players without aid of a computer,as well as assisted in arbitaring, and I would not consider it any extra burden. You just have the signs automatically in the equipment box and they are put, even near the draw up on the wall. No extra time at all. A very poor excuse not to have them up when the ramifications of not having them could be so much greater. Reminds me of local councillors who will spend many more times the energy in get out of doing something rather then do the job.


KB
Many people don't like being monitored and treated like a potential cheat even when they are doing nothing wrong, even if it is supposedly for their own good.

A/C
Well they will soon get used to it. They will not be monitored any more than they would be at present. We got used to using seat belts, using digital clocks, Fisher random chess, en passant etc etc. If we can get used to being peeped upon in the toilet we can get used to a few harmless signs.
That is a winner surely.



Hmmm, one might say the same thing about your entire case, so I suspect otherwise. :lol:

GG would but I look at the other issues that over the years I have campaigned on and I have been justified on and so I have confidence in my judgement.

Kevin Bonham
01-05-2009, 05:51 PM
I said we are talking about the future. If a person was genuinely on the dunny (and whether or not also cheating) their privacy may be held to be infringed upon. Only maybe until confirmed.

Irrelevant in this case as it was known they were not genuinely on it. If it appears they are genuinely on it then another approach may be warranted.


Yes it was politics and you can judge whether irrelevant or not. A person appealed to the Britich High Court and was rejected, but aha, he then went to the European Union and he won. It was an international issue. So the arbitar and even Chess ASSoc and/or FIDE may say it is okay, but the law of the land could very well prevail over all, and create a precedent at the same time. As happened in the above-mentioned case.

Sure, that happens frequently, and it may even happen in chess cases. For instance I have mentioned that my own treatment of cases where players have difficulty scoring is in part influenced by the state Anti-Discrimination Act. However, in the cheating case, there has still been no evidence provided that any law was broken.


But how could HE (of course) act in the best interests if he feels restricted coz of lack of clarity in what HE may or may not do.

Evidently in this case the arbiter did not feel thus restricted.


He may not have the desire or strength of character to confront someone in the toilet (coz cant be absolutely sure of cheating as well) and should not be expected to confront in those circumstances.

Then there are many other ways the arbiter can deal with it.


that is correct if there are the approp warning signs as in woollies and as happens at schools where the approval is also needed.

For chess, agreement to accept the arbiters' decisions when entering a tournament is sufficient.


Because the protocol has not been established (between players and associations) with how to deal with such problems the player can refuse the search, He is then put out, and if that player had a good chance of winning good prize money HE may consider suing.

Under what law?


Well I have conducted comps of up to 30 players without aid of a computer,as well as assisted in arbitaring, and I would not consider it any extra burden.

Then perhaps you should volunteer to do it for any willing club in your area.


Well they will soon get used to it. They will not be monitored any more than they would be at present.

It's not the amount of monitoring that is the issue; it is being constantly reminded that it is happening.


We got used to using seat belts, using digital clocks, Fisher random chess, en passant etc etc.

All irrelevant. The issue is not the general idea of getting used to something but what you are getting used to.

antichrist
01-05-2009, 05:55 PM
[QUOTE=Kevin Bonham]...


Well you don't have another FG7 or sweeney here who will argue forever and wasting their precious life - expect again you referred to past events where as I am planning for the future as I stated.

When I get more legal ramifications I SHALL RETURN

NB I am older than yourself so have less of precious life left unless you choke on a snail shell

antichrist
02-05-2009, 05:04 PM
ssshhhhhhhhhhh everyone I may have gotten the last word in

Kevin Bonham
02-05-2009, 05:16 PM
ssshhhhhhhhhhh everyone I may have gotten the last word in

Because it was too pathetic and lame to be worth responding to?

antichrist
06-05-2009, 05:04 PM
I see that new NsW govt laws concerning strip searches stipulate that such searches must be done by the same sex and in the case of juniors with the parents or guardians permission. It also stated that transgenders would have to be searched by their own sex - do they mean another transgender or the nominated gender?

must get the rules right for when we sort this out

At chess comps maybe Orthodox Jews will be demanded to be searched by Orthodox Jews? etc etc

Kevin Bonham
06-05-2009, 06:10 PM
Yes, well, no one is proposing strip-searching so that's all irrelevant.

Denis_Jessop
06-05-2009, 08:52 PM
Who would strip seach Antichrist?:hmm: :hmm: :lol:

DJ

antichrist
09-05-2009, 04:26 PM
Well Denis, Bergil volunteered that an arbitar would get an awful shock if they peeped over the wall at him.... if you knew him you would understand.

Well going to the fanatacism of some on this board I could easily imagine them going overboard and infringing someone's privacy.

Thunderspirit
09-05-2009, 04:45 PM
Who would strip seach Antichrist?:hmm: :hmm: :lol:

DJ


I'm prepared to let A/C cheat if it comes to that. I won't be strip searching A/C. :eh:

The NSWCA doesn't have enough money for me to go there... ;)

antichrist
09-05-2009, 04:50 PM
I'm prepared to let A/C cheat if it comes to that. I won't be strip searching A/C. :eh:

The NSWCA doesn't have enough money for me to go there... ;)

If I took a comp serious enough to cheat, I would go and study a chess book instead of cheating. I would love a lesbian to strip me - that would upset them

Thunderspirit
09-05-2009, 04:55 PM
If I took a comp serious enough to cheat, I would go and study a chess book instead of cheating.
I agree with A/C on this one... Why would anyone want to cheat (especially at club level) what possible reward could be good enough to justify it??

Winning a couple of hundred dollars and the 'prestige' (cough - splutter) of winning an U1600 event doesn't cut it for me...

Denis_Jessop
09-05-2009, 08:10 PM
Well Denis, Bergil volunteered that an arbitar would get an awful shock if they peeped over the wall at him.... if you knew him you would understand.

Well going to the fanatacism of some on this board I could easily imagine them going overboard and infringing someone's privacy.


I do know Bergil. :)

DJ

antichrist
01-07-2009, 10:41 PM
In a recent US court case (Supreme Court I think) a school child won a case for invasion of privacy when the school forced her to strip to check for hiding drugs (she had none). It was only okay to search her outer clothing and bag not any further.

So it appears that laws in this area are still evolving and that it may not be okay to peep over toilet walls in the future. Now if a female arbitar wanted to peep at me well bring it on.

Kevin Bonham
01-07-2009, 10:45 PM
AC, you are the one who seems most to be supporting searching of personal belongings in this debate, so I think it is actually your case that that finding might be seen to undermine.